There have been a few crazy letters to the editor recently attacking evolution.  I heard this type of thinking, which is usually passed down through the religion meme, described as a “Tradition of Ignorance”.  Ignorance is a negative word, but really it boils down to not knowing something.  If you don’t understand something, you probably shouldn’t argue for or against it.  I am going to trust that the thousands of working scientists today understand evolution and that they are right when calling it a fact.  It is too bad that after 150 years with Darwin’s amazing discovery that we are still arguing with religious fundamentalists about it.

Here are the letters in chronological order.

Monday, October 24, 2011

The History Channel recently aired “History of the World in Two Hours,” which showed how man evolved from bacteria to fish to amphibian and so on.

If you believe in evolution as taught in our public schools, I challenge you to read part one of “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown PhD, seventh edition, 2001.

This book, recently loaned to me by my pastor, will scientifically show how evolution and Darwin don’t have a prayer.

Ray Greff

Rapid City

My reply was printed just two day later.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

In a recent letter, Ray Greff promoted the book, “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown.  Greff writes that the book “will scientifically show how evolution and Darwin don’t have a prayer.”

Walt Brown isn’t a biologist, and his self-published book, “In the Beginning,” is the lowest order of junk science.  It’s not just hogwash about evolution but makes claims (without credible evidence) that directly conflict with well-established biology, geology and cosmology.

The book quotes, treating them as reliable scientific sources, The Moscow Daily and Creation Research Quarterly.  When he does cite reputable publications such as Science, quotes are taken out of context or are outright fabrications.

Did I write “junk science?”  I meant “junk.”

If your faith demands belief in creationism, then you better stick to faith to support your claims and stay away from science. Evolution is the most well-proven and understood concept in all of science, with five distinct lines of evidence based on DNA, fossil record, embryology, geography and classification, respectively.

I would recommend “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne or “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins as actual science books, written by biologists, discussing evolution and its evidence.

Jason Jackson

Rapid City

That got the attention of a local politician named Don Kopp who apparently has written anti-science letters to the Rapid City Journal before.  Here is his somewhat rambling reply.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Ray Greff’s attack on the religion of atheism by going after the Holy Grail (evolution) is guaranteed to draw an emotional response from the keepers of “real science.”

After all, everyone knows that “real science” predicts that nothing will produce something.

As Paul Davies, a physicist explains in his book, “Edge of Infinity”:

“The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principals.”

Ah, you gotta love how well miracles fit into their science.

Or as George Wald, Nobel Prize recipient at Harvard stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result.”

Shame on you, Mr. Greff, for believing that creationism demonstrates the giver of life must also be living.  That’s “junk science.”

Dr. Giesler (University of Colorado) said: “May well be that creationism is correct about origins. But even if it were correct, it’s still not scientific.”

What the heck does truth have to do with it, anyway?  Mr. Greff, you just gotta have more faith.

Don Kopp

Rapid City

At this point I wasn’t sure if I should reply.  The letter was terribly written, and almost stands in opposition to itself.  In the end I decided I should continue to defend science and replied.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Recent letters attacking evolution have failed to actually assail any of the salient points regarding the scientific concept. In the most recent letter, Don Kopp does everything except write about any of the evidence, instead using a series of straw man and ad hominem attacks, and cherry picking quotes.

He tries to tie evolution to the “religion of atheism,” which is like calling “not collecting stamps” a hobby, and neglects that the majority of Americans supporting evolution are religious. He steers a wide path around any discussion of the actual science involved.

DNA-based data provides the strongest of five distinct lines of evidence for evolution. Developed in the 1980s, with work continuing through today, DNA evidence for evolution is so convincing that it should push away all but the most unreasonable doubts.

We have also seen evolution played out before our eyes in the lab and nature. A recent study found that 99.9 percent of working scientists accept evolution, due to this overwhelming evidence.

There is no controversy, save amongst religious fundamentalists.

I would encourage such individuals to either stick to faith, or bring an intellectually honest, science-based argument to the table. I am doubtful this will occur.

Jason Jackson

Rapid City

Apparently Mr. Kopp felt he needed to reply, and this time really showed that he doesn’t actually understand the topics at hand.  I am sad to say that this is how almost every debate I have had with any creationist has gone.  They usually don’t understand what evolution is, sometimes thinking it is everything from the big bang to abiogenesis to a religious creed.  When they do have some grasp on some part of the concept of evolution they usually hold on to it tightly, even if it is a minor point.  And many creationists simply aren’t very good at scientific thinking.  They may have a wealth of scientific knowledge on a number of subjects, but the scientific method is foreign to them.  Here was his reply.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Jason Jackson, I was in total agreement with one of your evolution-minded colleagues who stated that the spontaneous generation of life from non-life is impossible. Then you reply that DNA presents the best evidence for evolution — really?

DNA in symbiosis with its RNA counterpart is so incredibly complex that it does, in fact, make spontaneous generation impossible as Dr. Wald so stated.

Let the reader understand: There is no random process that can assemble such complexity.  To believe otherwise is akin to thinking a tornado passing through a junk yard could randomly pick all the right components, then assemble them into a space shuttle.

In transcription, an RNA uses a gene in the DNA as a template to create a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA). The RNA unzips a section of DNA then copies it.

This  process continues trillions of times without error. If an error does occur, it is called a mutation, and according to evolution, this is how complexity occurred!  We simply mutated upward. The second law of thermodynamics contradicts this idea.

This scientific fact can be stated without contradiction: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” — Psalm 139:14

Don Kopp

Rapid City

I almost laughed out loud when I saw the stuff about the second law of thermodynamics.  But really it is sad, because he is just throwing mumbo-jumbo out there and people may very well believe it.  I responded.

Friday, November 25, 2011

The letter by Don Kopp published Nov. 20 highlights the need for science education in general and an accurate teaching of evolution in particular.

He argues that evolution is random.  This is wrong, but a common misunderstanding.

A gene may randomly mutate to provide a different trait.  If this trait helps an individual survive to pass along the gene, then that gene is more likely to be found in the population in general over subsequent generations. The environment acts as a filter, and we call that filter natural selection.

This is the key to evolution.  Saying evolution is based on randomness would be to say that Miles Davis made music with air, a misleading and intellectually dishonest statement.

Second, evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  To say so betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the core principles of science. The law (to paraphrase) states that order goes to disorder in a closed system.

The Earth is not a closed system, and this argument is so obviously wrong that I am surprised it was made.

For a better explanation of evolution, I would suggest “The Greatest Show on Earth,” written by eminent biologist Richard Dawkins.

Jason Jackson

Rapid City

I doubt I convinced Mr. Kopp of anything, though that would be quite an achievement.  My goal in these letters was two fold.  First, I didn’t want such individuals to come off as having some special knowledge or expertise in evolutionary science in such a public forum.  Second, I wanted to refute these false claims for those that might just be opening their eyes to science, such as our youth.  When I was in high school I regularly read the newspaper, and I cringe at the idea that some young girl or boy might be swayed by the opinion of a public leader such as Mr. Kopp, and lead away from a career in life sciences.

In science, the central idea is to form a hypothesis about a particular subject and then test it. Empirical data is collected via experimentation or observation. If the hypothesis is well supported by these data we call it a theory. In the world of modern science this theory may be written up in a paper and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. At this point an editor or editors decide if the paper is serious and worthy of consideration, and if so hands it off for review by various experts to ensure that the math and science represented in the paper seem on the level. After all of this, the paper is published and the scientific community in general, and particularly those scientists with expertise in the subject matter, will debate the validity of the theory. Scientists may reproduce experiments described in the paper, or concoct new experiments to test the theory. Eventually the theory either amasses a large amount of supporting data from various experts, or it is disproven.

This is modern science and it has given us the miracles of our modern world. But for those of us that are not professional scientists, reading professional journals can be challenging. We instead turn to those scientists and qualified journalists that write books on scientific theories, relying on their arguments to form our own opinions. Good science writers are honest and forthcoming about both the strengths and weaknesses of the theories they present. They also ensure that they only represent scientific facts or well supported theories based on peer-reviewed work, and when they go beyond these bounds to speculate they call it out clearly. As always reality is the crucible of science, and a good science writer ensures that what they are presenting to the general public is backed up.

The 30th Anniversary Edition of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is one of the finest examples of good science writing I have encountered. It is, of course, a classic in popular science, so much so that I have often felt slightly embarrassed to have never read it when the subject of the book occasionally comes up amongst friends and acquaintances.  I am happy to report that I have rectified this situation, and that the book was better than I had hoped.

The version I picked up was the 30th Anniversary Edition, released in 2006.  The original book published in 1976 contained eleven chapters.  An update in 1989 added extensive footnotes to the book and two additional chapters.  The 30th edition is basically the 1989 version with the original forward restored to the book, and a new forward by Richard Dawkins added as well.  Keep in mind the major update in 1989 as I move forward in my review.

First, the book centers around what Dr. Dawkins refers to as the “selfish gene”, or as he has also called it, the “immortal gene.”  His writing describes evolution by natural selection by concentrating on the thing actually being selected: the gene.  Throughout the first several chapters of the book Dawkins again and again describes how we should think about evolution and natural selection in terms of how genes replicate down through the generation, and that plants and animals are akin to replicator machines.  It is a fascinating, clear-headed take on how evolution actually works.

Dawkins covers one evolutionary puzzle after another, showing how even biologists can make incorrect assumptions based on evolution of the group or species instead of concentrating on the thing replicating, which is of course the selfish gene.  The author relies heavily on his own published works, and the works of other experts in the field, to illustrate that not only is the selfish gene idea a good one but that it conforms extremely well to experimental evidence.  One take on experimentation that I found fascinating was the use of computer simulations of various evolutionary “strategies”.  Dawkins and others, in 1976, we already simulating evolution in computers using game theory as a guide.  Of course this work only grew in the years up to the update of the book in 1989.

At the time of the 1989 release, Dawkins included a robust set of footnotes.  True to the themes of good science writing, Dawkins left both the good and bad, the correct and incorrect, in place in the book and provides detailed explanations in the footnotes.  On more than one occasion Dawkins takes great pains to show why he was wrong about a particular detail, giving credit to other scientists when due.  This is a type of intellectual honesty that must be appreciated and held up as a goal for which all should strive.  Reading through the original 11 chapters, I managed to read about 95% of the footnotes, and it was a treat to have the years peeled back like an onion, and shown how science had progressed in the field.

The final chapter of the original book introduced the idea that evolution and replication are not tied to biology, but are general principles of nature.  To this end Dawkins almost offhandedly introduces the meme.  Dawkins himself mentions in the footnotes how this concept, introduced in the last chapter almost as an afterthought, has taken on a life of its own and now has research confirming it.  Meme has entered the popular lexicon, and is in now in the dictionary.  All of this adds an exciting new dimension to an already fascinating book.

The final (new) chapter of the book discusses Dawkins’s continuing work that relates to The Selfish Gene, explicitly referring to The Extended Phenotype.  That book is now on my reading list for future consumption.

I cannot recommend The Selfish Gene enough.  It is clearly written, well presented book that spells out the nature of evolution.  It has held up amazingly well over the last 35 years, which is a true test of such a book.  I believe it will be a classic in science writing for years to come.

I recently finished reading Why Does E=mc²? (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.  The book has a very direct goal: explain why energy equals mass times the universal speed limit squared, and why it matters to us.  The authors take an approach that only mildly boarders on the classical way of teaching science.  While they do discuss relevant scientists and history as you would find in a science class, they only do so in a limited fashion and only when they need to show the previously-existing information and concepts that Albert Einstein stood upon to derive his famous equation, and then general relativity.  The style of the book is somewhat easy to follow, and is aimed at presenting the path to E=mc² to a layman without diving to far into math.

Cox and Forshaw used Pythagoras to arrive at the famous equation, which I have seen done before.  However, they take the time to spell out the argument, showing why the specific mathematical path is chosen.  For example, the Euclidean (flat-space geometry) version of Pythagoras is h² = a² + b².  The authors show why this version cannot be used because of causality (the flow of time), and graphical show why the non-Euclidean h² = a² – b² must be used instead.  From there they proceed, step by step, to derive E=mc².

This drive towards Einstein’s most famous equation takes the first half of the book, and for the most part the authors take a slow, steady approach.  But at the critical juncture when many abstract concepts such as spacetime, and vectors in space and time are being split, the procedure seems rushed.  In just a couple of page they throw away the cautious, explanatory approach and introduce new mathematical terms which are not immediately obvious.  They are not nearly verbose enough about the steps being taken, or about why new equations are being introduced.  I really felt I was reading a 5-star book up until this point.  I would use the analogy of going on vacation by flying to a tropical destination on a luxury private jet, then having to unload your own baggage from the plane when you got there.  I really wished the authors had spent at least another page or two explaining the final pieces.  But they didn’t and I had to reread the last section several times, and even consulted Wikipedia to try and figure out the mathematical tricks they were using.

The rest of the book dove off into the world of general relativity and quantum mechanics.  This was a good overview, but I real felt like the book went downhill after E=mc² was derived.  One big problem I had with the sections on quantum mechanics was the introduction of a “master equations”, which relates the various types of particles and forces at the elementary particle level.  Instead of reprinting the equation occasionally when discussing it, and perhaps highlighting the portions being discussed, the book simply referred to the one place it was printed.  This was very inconvenient and I finally got tired of going back to the equation again and again, switching between pages trying to follow along.  I would imagine that if the equation has simply been reprint 5 or 10 times where being discussed, with relevant portions highlighted, that the book would have gained a page or two.  That seems a small price for clarity on a very difficult subject.

What saved this book for me was the clarity of writing by the authors, and their obvious love of the subject.  I would like to find a better work on the subject to recommend to a layman, but this is still probably the best treatment I have read on E=mc².  Perhaps a second edition can make these editorial changes to improve the book. But if you are not concerned with every single mathematical step to the equation, then this is probably the book for you.

How did we get here?  This is one of the most important questions every asked, and is a cornerstone of religion, philosophy and science.  Of those three, science is the only one with a hope of answering the question.  To that end, Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow spell out their working theory in The Grand Design.  The title is ironic, as the authors quickly dispel the notion that there is a design or a designer.

Hawking and Mlodinow take us through a journey of scientific discovery, starting with the ancient Greeks and ending with modern physicists.  Slowly they build their case for a universe based on the theories of quantum physics and general relativity.  The book is surprisingly accessible, despite this rich subject matter.  Having read several other books on physics I was surprised at how little math was brought into play.  I think a true layman could probably get through this book and understand most of it.  You may pick up on some of the subtler points if you have a background in science or if you have read up on the subject.

The authors paint a picture based on the multiverse interpretation of quantum physics to explain our history (or histories!) going back to the big bang, or a bang-like event.  Its not novel per-se, as this approach has been discussed in the physics community in general.  But it does take on an interesting life with two prominent physicists explaining the theory.  Can we build an ultimate, theory of everything that helps explain how we got here by marrying quantum physics and general relativity?

I had the luck of picking this book up on a long travel day, and so I actually have the bragging rights of having finished a Stephen Hawking book in one day.  However, this probably included around 12 hours of reading, and the fact I finished it so quickly really speaks to the quality of the book and the level at which it is written more than my reading comprehension or intelligence!

I would recommend The Grand Design to anyone interested in our existence and how we got here.

The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language is like two books bound into one cover.  The book first and foremost covers the evolution of language and the various components and precursors of language from distant evolutionary relatives through modern man.  But it is also an insiders view of the personalities and culture of the world of linguistics research.  Author Kristine Kenneally (Ph.D, linguistics) weaves an interesting tale of the controversies inside this particular scientific community surrounding the evolution of language, and the actual hard science being done.

The science behind the evolution of language is fascinating.  Dr. Kenneally (now a journalist) gives the reader a great view into how basing good science on the solid foundation of evolutionary theory can help provide solid answers to a deep mystery.  A number of our evolutionary cousins including various apes and mammals, birds and even reptiles are studied for DNA and evolutionary clues concerning language.  We are provided with evidence that parts of language span back millions of years, while the final product may only have existed for tens of thousands of years.

Throughout the book the author brings us back time and time again to the personalities studying this exciting new scientific field of evolutionary linguistics, and to the old guard that often try to stand in their way.  Understanding how scientists are people too brings a very human touch to what is ultimately a uniquely human story.  I would recommend this book to anyone interested in how the nitty-gritty of cutting edge science works, or that is interested in language.

Last week I finished reading The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine by Francis S. Collins.  It has taken me a few days to digest the ideas in the book, such is the scope and depth of the materials presented.

Collins is an expert in genetics, holding a PhD in chemistry and an MD, and ran the Human Genome Project.  With this background, and knowledge from a number of professional relationships he has built, a vast tale of personal medicine based on genetics is told.   He manages to tie together large bodies of cited research with human stories.  The author brings real stories of real people impacted by real science: cutting-edge genetic testing and genetic treatments.  These are stories of cancer, Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and heart attacks.  They are stories of sorrow, of hope, and of the controversy and ethics of stem cells, cloning, and genetic testing of fetuses.

I was caught off guard with the advances being made in the various medical fields related to genetics.  This isn’t pie-in-the-sky stuff.  Collins documents a well-know (in medical circles) case of AIDS being cured with a genetically-modified stem cell implant.  He discusses how patients’ lives have been saved with genetic screening, and how patients have avoided painful and unnecessary procedures because of the same screening.  He also discusses a number of cures waiting in the wings, often delayed by an archaic FDA.

Most convincing to me was his line of predictions.  Collins illustrated 10 predictions he made in 2000 about the state of genetic medicine in 2010.  At the time he got laughs, yet all 10 predictions have come true.  He lays out further predictions for the future.  We are looking at a time when major diseases could be cured due to our increased understanding of DNA, and new techniques being developed almost weekly for the modification of our genetic code.

Beyond the stories and the medicine, this book provides a solid layman’s education in DNA and microbiology.  I would recommend it to anyone with a disease (especially cancer), to anyone concerned about their health, or anyone curious about genetics and the future of medicine.

Wired has a great article about how businesses are actually listening to the scientists and changing their business practices based on the reality of global warming.  Some businesses, like global shipper Beluga, are using new Arctic Sea routes that weren’t open even a couple of years ago.  Other businesses like insurance companies are betting that global warming is real.  Corporations cannot afford to listen to science-denier politics.  A corporation has to, you know, actually exist in the real world of facts and make money in that world.  Here is a short quote from an unusually good article from Wired.  I would encourage you to read the whole thing.

Companies, of course, exist to make money. That’s often what makes them seem so rapacious. But their primal greed also plants them inevitably in the “reality-based community.” If a firm’s bottom line is going to be affected by a changing climate — say, when its supply chains dry up because of drought, or its real estate gets swamped by sea-level rise — then it doesn’t particularly matter whether or not the executives want to believe in climate change. Railing at scientists for massaging tree-ring statistics won’t stop the globe from warming if the globe is actually, you know, warming. The same applies in reverse, as the folks at Beluga Shipping adroitly realized: If there are serious bucks to be made from the changing climate, then the free market is almost certainly going to jump at it.